Talk:Epinions

This article was nominated for deletion on 22/7/2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

acquisition history / rating circle

Regarding the acquisition history of Epinions: Epinions was acquired by DealTime.com in 2003. Later that same year, DealTime acquired the shopping.com domain name and adopted it as their business name.

Refs:

• Wedding Bells for DealTime, Epinions
• DealTime Morphs into Shopping.com

--KSchwartz 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Epinions started before 2001, since I published some reviews there in 2000. I think they've been around since 1999, but I'm not sure of the exact year when they got started. Someone might want to check on that.

NOTE: Epinions started June 1999.

The material on this page is so negatively weighted, it at least borders on an attack on Epinions.

--Vorpalbla 5/17/05

I think the phrase "circle-jerkers" needs to removed in regards to it's more risque connotation.--Daveswagon 06:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at removing the non-NPOV angle to the article. It still needs improvement, but it's certainly a lot better than it was. --Keith

According to "mobiprof" in http://www.epinions.com/content_4411138180 the first members (all employees) were registered on 25 Jul 1999 and the first review was posted on 5 Jul 1999.

Circle-jerkers is evocative, but perhaps a small rewrite to use "rating circle" instead of "circle-jerker"?

Vorpalbla must be referring to the 5 May 2005 edits by 63.185.112.124. Those comments do seem an attack, but do contain a lot of valid criticism which epinions.com members are familiar with. Criticism of epinions.com dealings is a fact of life, so maybe that should be in here, Perhaps someone can rewrite it to NPOV and add back in under a "criticism" heading?

By the way, another thing that should probably be in here: epinions.com was bought by shopping.com. There now is a lawsuit with about 40 former employees including original founders against shopping.com, its board, and the epinions.com venture capitalist. They claim to have been cheated out of a fair share of epinions.com / shopping.com's IPO value.

- Tom

eBay bought off shopping.com. Epinions is also affiliated with Dealtime. And SOME epinions members still make $100/month.

Very few members still receive "Income Share", so that behavior isn't really a factor there anymore. "Circle-jerkers" is obviously biased and offensive. I think we need to check the motives & abilities of those in a big hurry to restore this broken version. -- December 30 2005

24.196.161.92 keeps deleting discussion of the criticism of epinions.com. This seems looks like a corporate attempt to squash criticism, when as noted above, that crititism is a fact of epinions.com life. His claim that the text is "out-of-date" (in his edit comment) is a an outright lie. This looks like corporate wiki-vandalism. Restored the previous version again, but changed "circle-jerkers" to "circle raters".

I don't work for Epinions and this isn't an effort to squash criticism, it's an effort to help the article conform to any sort of objective standard. The information is out of date. It's not even debatable! The few members who still receive "Income Share" did their "circle-rating" many years ago, today it has no tangible effect. If Wiki users are comfortable with articles which contain out of date material and are laughably subjective, the site will look like a haven for mediocre ex-Epinions writers. Hit a nerve?

---

> "I don't work for Epinions" Oh, you work for ebay.com then? Sorry mate, but it is funny that you don't deny that upfront when you do deny working fur epinions.com.

> "it's an effort to help the article conform to any sort of objective standard. The information is out of date" So, you are now claiming rating-circles don't exist anymore? No, you confirm it: "today it has no tangible effect" (but they do exist, hu? So how did you measure effect? *cugh*)

Circle-jerking is alive and well, but I dont have to tell you that. You use it all the time, but just dont want others to know your dirty little secret, huh?

I edited out that colorful word to protect those delicate senses you used as another pretense for your corporate twisting of the truth. Some people may dislike that edit, but it is just an edit. Your agressive deletion of an entire paragraph is vandalism. To paraphrase your own words: I think we need to check the motives & abilities of those in a big hurry to keep deleting that paragraph.

> "If Wiki users are comfortable with articles which contain out of date material and are laughably subjective, the site will look like a haven for mediocre ex-Epinions writers. Hit a nerve?" You mean "If Wiki users are comfortable with mediocre epinions writers who circle-jerk to get their high ratings and titles vandalising wiki articles, trying to hide their abusive ways, and lying in the discussion thread to get their way, wiki articles about companies will reduce to nothing but corporate propaganda."?

It is just a paragraph, but it seems pretty informative for just a few sentences. Here is a entire article about it by an epinions.com Category Lead: Welcome to Bambi's Epinions House of Trustitution, And, oh, a Category Lead does work for epinions.com; a Category Lead is an epinions.com contractor.

Realistically, circle-rating (the replacement word) will remain alive until epinions.com does something about it. Doh. You are right about on thing: this is not debatable. You are guilty of vandalising a wiki article.

---

My point is this: Discussion about any of these topics belongs on this page, not the main page. I frankly don't care if some writers have a beef to grind with Epinions, I just prefer to see straight information in a "pedia" which pretends to be objective. I don't work for Ebay, Epinions, or any of its partners or associates. You want Wikipedia to be another kind of Epinions, where opinion has as much weight as fact, fine. Thanks for educating me on the kind of information I'll find at Wikipedia. -"24.196.161.92"

Criticism

I removed the tag from the Criticism section because Epinions does indeed suppress negative reviews to anonymous viewers. You can demonstrate this by logging in/out and reading reviews.

Negative reviews are often buried on Epinions, which is unfortunate because information about the things that annoy and frustrate users of a product are often the most interesting. Dajhorn 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have added it back, except the entire criticism section seems to have been renamed. Rants which say nothing about the product are suppressed, but there's no specific supression (or suppresion mechanism) for negative reviews. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I have removed the deletion entry and below I will try and explain why. Firstly this is not self promotion, I have created and submitted content to several Reward websites articles and it has been said that I am "self promoting" all of them, yet I would have to have a stake in all these companies if this were the case and that's unlikely. Second quidco and rpoints are very notable, an article by Martin Lewis in The Guardian was dedicated to them but I am having problems finding the actual article and can only find references to it. I will try and use my uni newspaper subscription to find it. Note that Paypal is a company, is highly notable in part because it's owned by ebay. Epinions is also owned by ebay, so forfills the same criteria. I also don't see why these websites should be any more notable than the alternatives offered above that are less popular at the moment because they don't have the weight of a large corporation behind them. I believe wikipedia is used to inform people in an unbiased manner There is contraversy surrounding the way these businesses operate and there is little information about this on the web, certainly very little in an unbiased form. Supposed 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this entry is (or, rather, could be) plenty useful to readers. The "Criticism" section which someone removed recently because it was not NPOV could easily have been fixed to bring it in line with NPOV. The fact stated therein, that some useful reviews are in fact suppressed on Epinions, is demonstrably verifiable by viewing the same topics while both logged in and logged out: some useful reviews disappear when you're not logged in, which is also to say, if you're just a member of the general public (non-member). The reason I am not bothering to fix the entry myself or to weigh in on the deletion vote is that I know that any time I spend improving this entry will be wasted the next time someone "unimproves" it, or it gets deleted. It's not worth my time for something that many people just absolutely refuse to be neutral about. Lumbercutter 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

213.84.7.90 and the futility of this page

This user has a very limited scope of edits and many reek of "agenda" and "bad faith". The self-referencing link, the argument with the other anon above, reasons for reverts like "you're wrong", etc. I will discontinue watching this page, for now it's worthless, as Lumbercutter says above.--Son of Somebody 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong the page, aside from misguided anon editors? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For one, validation of the term "trustitution", coined in the Epinions essay linked from this page, seems like a weak spot. I don't doubt that these trust circles exist, but when I read the essay I have serious doubts about its reliability. The essay is essentially a humor piece by an author who even admits he has a conflict of interest. Presumably, the author is making extra cash by linking here, maybe I'm wrong. I have other material objections to the form, but having watched this page for some months, it's clear that this user has control of its status quo because of his/her zeal to label an intangible set of opinions into a immutable fact. That, and it's just not that important. Until someone is willing to do a major overhaul, I believe it's a lost cause. Good luck to those who judge otherwise :)

--Son of Somebody 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arthur.Rubin and the futility of this page

Arthur.Rubin has a limited scope in his edits. His edits are in bad faith, to support his clear agenda. He demands proof for well-known facts, balks when it is given, and writes accusations her as "history" when he gets a demand to back up his edits. Arthur.Rubin is an epinions member who is financially profiting from the hats he gets by participating in rating circles. His circle rating gets and keeps "Advisor" and "Top Reviewer" labels. The essay was linked because Arthur.Rubin keeps rewriting this entry to delete the truth - when the text was corrected, he demanded external links... Thus the link to a piece by a current epinions.com contractor - and now Arthur.Rubin claims that he has serious doubts about its reliability. Truth is, on Aug 25 '04, Arthur.Rubin rated that opinion "Very Helpfull". ratings of that review Just a humor piece? Are you blind? It is fact presented through humor. You should recognize a few members - perhaps even yourself!! There are 141 comments, read them to understand... oh wait, you know it is true, buty our edits are about denying the click circles that get you your profitable "Advisor" and "Top Reviewer" labels. And recognizing yourself... that must hurt! Ouch! Arthur.Rubin claims that the author (scmrak) admits a conflict of interest. That claim does not make sense. Just for the heck of it, I searched that text for "conflict", and did not find it. -213.84.7.90

Would you please pay attention. When the text was "corrected" to omit the fact that smrack is a lead, I put it back, although I have doubts as to the accuracy of the piece. (Accuracy is not a requirement for a high rating in a humor piece, as you should know, if you've actually read Epinions "reviews" in those categories.) For what it's worth, I do not participate in click circles, or even write-offs any more. Furthermore, if you read to the end of scmrak's review, he stated it was parody, and that he does not participate in click circles, making it unlikely that he now knows they exist.

There is no reliable source that "click circles" now exist (nor is there likely to be).

I removed the comment about CL's and TR's reviews being always displayed above reviews of others, because it's demonstrably false.

Thinking back, I have no idea which of my edits you're complaining about. Please be more specific.

I also believe that your note here borders on violating WP:AGF, although I will not request deletion of the comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found the edits you disapprove of. I stated that CL and TR reviews are placed more highly than they would be with the same ratings if the person were not a CL or TR. You stated they they were almost always placed at the top. Your statement is not capable of confirmation, even with the assistance of Epinions staff.

And I (or another editor) changed smrack's statement from "confirming" the existence of click circles to "claiming". I think "confirming" would require some additional reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(Attempted to refactor and reply in similar indentation. The anon's indentation/quoting convention isn't readable at all.)

(AR) = User:Arthur Rubin 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (AR2) = User:Arthur Rubin 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (anon)= User:213.84.7.90 17:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (AR3) = User:Arthur Rubin 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(AR) Would you please pay attention. When the text was "corrected" to omit the fact that smrack is a lead, I put it back, although I have doubts as to the accuracy of the piece. (Accuracy is not a requirement for a high rating in a humor piece, as you should know, if you've actually read Epinions "reviews" in those categories.) For what it's worth, I do not participate in click circles, or even write-offs any more. Furthermore, if you read to the end of scmrak's review, he stated it was parody, and that he does not participate in click circles, making it unlikely that he now knows they exist.

(AR) There is no reliable source that "click circles" now exist (nor is there likely to be).

(AR) I removed the comment about CL's and TR's reviews being always displayed above reviews of others, because it's demonstrably false.

(AR) Thinking back, I have no idea which of my edits you're complaining about. Please be more specific.

(AR) I also believe that your note here borders on violating WP:AGF, although I will not request deletion of the comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(AR2) OK, I found the edits you disapprove of. I stated that CL and TR reviews are placed more highly than they would be with the same ratings if the person were not a CL or TR. You stated they they were almost always placed at the top. Your statement is not capable of confirmation, even with the assistance of Epinions staff.

(AR2) And I (or another editor) changed smrack's statement from "confirming" the existence of click circles to "claiming". I think "confirming" would require some additional reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(anon) Would you please pay attention? Wasn't I the one who pointed out that scmrak is a Category Lead (contractor) and didn't you edit that out?

(AR3) Nope. I didn't edit it out. It was someone else.

(anon) You also keep removing the comment that MOST CL and TR reviews are displayed above those of others. That text is clear and correct. What you replace it with is hardly readable. Why? Why do you want to destroy good text?

(AR3) Your text is not clear, although probably correct, and completely unverifiable. (Are the reviews placed at the top because CLs and TRs tend to write good reviews, or because of the status.) My text is clearly sourcable to Epinions itself; CL and TR reviews are placed higher because of that status. If you want to rewrite for clarity, that's fine.

(anon) You claim: "Furthermore, if you read to the end of scmrak's review, he stated it was parody". That is just another lie. Why do you keep lying? Think no one will check? First you claim that he admits a conflict of interest. Now you claims he states it is parody. I ask everyone to follow the link and check for themselves: both Arthur.Rubin claims are false. He is making up his "arguments" as he goes along. Check the text. The word "conflict" does not appear. The word "parody" does not appear.

I have to wonder, did you bother to read it at all? It is a funny text, but he is very clearly serious. Read the last few paragraphs carefully. This is a epinions.com contractor telling you the click circles do still exist, and how to find them. Now, Arthur.Rubin, I understand that you are unhappy about scmrak telling everyone how to expose the likes of you. You want to deny your click-circling, but you have to do that somewhere else.

(AR3) There is an appearance of conflict of interest in both his review and in my statement. I didn't say there was an actual conflict of interest in either case.

(anon)You write " I do not participate in click circles, or even write-offs any more." Oh, just "not any more", huh? But you are afraid that scmrak's methods expose your history of circle-rating?

(AR3) I never participated in "click circles" except in some "write-offs". I don't participate in write-offs any more, either. And I haven't deleted the link to scmrak's article.

(unknown whether AR2 or anon) Yes, I do believe that your notes here border on violating WP:AGF. I did not request deletion of comments, but decided to reply in just the same way. If you are unhappy about the tone, consider your own tone first.

(anon) You are the one who demanded references for circle-rating, thinking there was none. I provided it, and now you keep deleting it, denying it, making up lies about it. You cant have your cake and eat it. You cant circle-rating and and keep denying it. You cant ask for references and then decide you dont like them.

(AR3) OOPS. I did delete the links. I'll reinsert scmrak's as a reference

(anon) Please refrain from further mass-deleting of useful links that compliment the text. Please stop trying to promote your "viewpoint" just because you don't want readers to know the facts.

Amazon

My experience is that amazon is the most useful alternative to epinions. The article did not even mention amazon. If someone can figure out a good way to include this, that will not offend someone, please do! 69.87.203.44 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AR seems to object to mentioning Amazon, perhaps the most relevant competition to epinions. He removed any mention of it. Now it will be up to the rest of you to decide what to do. 69.87.199.136 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)